Thank you very much for your excellent presentation and some of your compelling arguments as to why you feel sanctuary should be an option. I'm glad to hear that it's a matter of last resort and a place of second sober thought.
Of course you are also concerned, as Mr. Allen said, about the integrity of the system, such as it is. My sense tells me that even if RAD were to be implemented, it would not, as you've mentioned, necessarily mean an end to sanctuary cases, because it would still be a case-by-case determination.
Can you tell me whether the various groups of churches have gotten together to try to establish--not within their own denominations, but on a cross-denomination basis--a type of protocol that you might adapt and follow, so that there is some objectivity to the claim, and whether there's perhaps some training aspect involved?
It's a principle, I suppose, that would be out there. I know it's a huge challenge, and it obviously puts a lot of demand on you and your resources. You would probably be involved whether or not RAD was there. Either of you may want to comment on that aspect.
The other aspect is that when you look at commentaries, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has indicated that the Canadian policy and practice are often seen as setting an example for other countries; they're recognized as being a fair system, comparatively speaking. I think it was Ms. Leddy who mentioned that there's a myriad of options.
Maybe we need to look at whether there's a better way of doing it, but as I understand what happens, you can make a refugee claim; it's heard by someone, and you might not agree with their assessment of the evidence, but in the end they've made a decision; then there's a pre-removal risk assessment that somebody makes on some sort of objective basis, which you may or may not agree with; and then there's a potential for an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Then somebody exercises their discretion, and a minister may or may not issue a certificate.
You have also, on top of that system, appeals to the Federal Court of Canada, notwithstanding that they're matters of law and somewhat restricted. Then there would be a RAD process as well.
If all of that were implemented, there is, as you say, a fragmented approach to the whole issue, but my sense is you're more interested in a second set of eyes looking at not just the law and the facts. Are you prepared to look at the whole system of options available and bring it down to a hearing on the facts, and then maybe a second look by someone on an expedited basis, as opposed to a court judge?
I just want to get your thoughts on those issues.